The well-known book "Germany and the Next War," by F. von Bernhardi, has been used to a great extent by the Anglo-American press for anti-German propaganda. By this book they hope to prove that "Germany systematically prepared for war"!. In connection therewith, the English [language] press refers to the spirit of Treitschke, a Prussian historian, whose basic philosophy was that a nation was doomed to perish which had lost her fighting spirit and had grown soft during a protracted period of peace. From this it is concluded that the German people, being aware of this basic truth, not only longed for war, but deliberately started this one.

We cannot say that these accusations against Germany are happily chosen, because what is true of Germany is also true of the other European powers.

All of them are armed to the teeth. The only exception, England, which has just an army of volunteers, appears in an entirely different light, if we consider that her navy promises the same protection for her as a land army does for the continental powers of Europe. England believes herself to be safe on her island fortress, because she hopes to prevent any landing of hostile forces by means of her navy. We will see very soon whether this confidence is justified or not.

If Germany, therefore, is to be held responsible for this war, which is supposed to be a product of militarism, it stands to reason that the other nations share this responsibility equally, because they have armed with the same fervor, and Germany's increase of her armed strength was never anything but a reaction to the additional armaments of France, Russia and the Balkan nations, which latter had only recently become a menace to Germany. Suppose that Germany, located in the center of Europe, had remained unarmed. Would British statesmen and diplomacy have guaranteed the peace of Europe? Would 3they have been able to do so? No, and a hundred times no! The Germans do not care to justify their armaments. The European situation was justification enough. They have reached the point where they do not even protest any more against the accusation of having started the war. The simple fact alone that not only are the three most powerful military nations of Europe--Russia, France, and England, fighting against the German Reich, but that they are wooing the Asiatics, Africans, and Americans to join them and become their allies, is proof enough that this war was planned and started by Germany's enemies. Maybe it was a surprise for this unholy alliance of Asiatics, Kurdes, Cossacks, Mongols, Japanese, Bengalese, Turks, Moors, Serbs, Montenegrins, Russians, English, and French, to find the Teutons fully aware of, and prepared for, the danger which threatened them. Germany's enemies did not reckon with such a display of strength, although they believed that they had a fair estimation of her power. That they expected much is amply proved by the fact that thirteen of them ganged up on one. The "valiant" Britons, 4in particular, sensed the danger pretty well when they enlisted the help of a few sluggers and sandbaggers to slay the young Siegfried from behind, in case things should go wrong otherwise. If our English-speaking contemporaries [here in the United States] would use their brains a little, they could easily come to the logical conclusion that Germany did not have the slightest incentive to provoke this war as long as she was faced with such a coalition of enemies. She could afford to wait and make friends and eventually success would have been hers. England knew this, and went into action by sponsoring a policy which made war inevitable. The British Military clique had recently informed a liberal government, in no uncertain terms, that a campaign against the "Ulster rebels" was out of the question for the time being. The military party had other fish to fry and the official mouthpiece, the Times, expressed it, a war with Germany. Generalissimo French forced the government to give in and eat humble pie. The minister of war was sacrificed on the altar of militarism, and disappeared ignominously. Asquith took over the war ministry himself. He was followed by Kitchener, the "hero of the 5Sudan," the idol of British imperialism. Keen-minded Yankees could not fail to see that the precarious domestic situation in England called for a diversion of these forces of restlessness into other channels. It would not be the first time that a revolution at home was prevented by a war on the outside. The emperor of the French lost his job thru an experiment like that in 1870. In England's case, only the Irish will hold the bag by losing the home rule which they were so sure of; but, on the other hand, the Anglican Church will retain its power. Our English contemporaries are not blessed with too much gray matter; otherwise they could probably think straight.

But we can make some concessions to the defenders of Britan's policy (her allies have none; they depend on England's smartness). We admit that the Teuton spirit differs from the Anglo-Saxon. A Slav spirit does not exist yet, and the French spirit is a thing of the past. A French hegemony in Europe cannot be visualized any more. Even a unification of the Latin countries (France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal) could not revive the old spirit again. The days of French imperialism are as definitely past as those of the former Spanish empire. There remain, then, two races and peoples struggling for 6world domination, the Anglo-Saxons and the Teutons. This war is in reality nothing but a conflict between the Teutons and the Anglo-Saxons. The objective is world domination. England likes it to be that way, and it's all right with us. England's allies over here, the American "newspaper soldiers," are trying to rub it in to us. That won't be necessary. We do not deny it. But they contend that it is the exclusive privilege of the Anglo-Saxons to rule the world, at which the Teutons laugh, and so do the Slavs. Some people know that this British impudence and arrogance has no justification whatever, because--and here again we make a concession to our contemporaries--the loot which England has grabbled together was acquired not by the sword but by tricks, ruses, and deceptions. The Teuton despises such a nation, which does not give her all for her honor.

Now it really makes very little difference whether our American contemporaries and journalistic colleagues call it the spirit of Treitschke, Nietzsche, or Bernhardi. The fact remains that it is the Germanic way to fight 7for possession of a thing, and not to steal it or haggle over it. Treitschke, Nietsche, and Bernhardi make this fact clear. We also admit that the Germanic spirit is essentially rooted in this concept. He who rests on his laurels will get soft. Therefore, a sturdy Germanic race rejected foreign influences--like the Italian and the French--because they would lead to the degeneration of the race. Why should Germans be ashamed of this? Why should they ask permission of the Anglo-Saxons, if they want to fight for a place on the top? What right has America to criticise Germany's proclamation of a sort of Monroe Doctrine for Europe? Has not the American Union done the same thing? This Republic will have to face the facts. The whining and howling about the "triumph of barbarism" will have to stop when history once renders its verdict. Teutonic rule means a bulwark against the influence of Asia and, when this struggle is finished, the Anglo-Saxons will have to fight side by side with the Teutons, to civilize the Slavs. The Teutons could do it by themselves, but the Anglo-Saxons could help. If the latter will co-operate, so much the better; if not, it [civilizing the Slavs] will be done in spite of them. But the Germans will not be stopped in their 8fight to reach their objective. There you see! The Germans are really frank and candid. What they say, they mean.